Hospital Performance, the Local Economy, and the Local Workforce: Findings from a U.S. National Longitudinal Study

Abstract

Background: Pay-for-performance is an increasingly popular approach to improving health care quality, and the US government will soon implement pay-for-performance in hospitals nationwide. Yet hospital capacity to perform (and improve performance) likely depends on local resources. In this study, we quantify the association between hospital performance and local economic and human resources, and describe possible implications of pay-for-performance for socioeconomic equity. Methods and Findings: We applied county-level measures of local economic and workforce resources to a national sample of US hospitals (n = 2,705), during the period 2004–2007. We analyzed performance for two common cardiac conditions (acute myocardial infarction [AMI] and heart failure [HF]), using process-of-care measures from the Hospital Quality Alliance [HQA], and isolated temporal trends and the contributions of individual resource dimensions on performance, using multivariable mixed models. Performance scores were translated into net scores for hospitals using the Performance Assessment Model, which has been suggested as a basis for reimbursement under Medicare's "Value-Based Purchasing" program. Our analyses showed that hospital performance is substantially associated with local economic and workforce resources. For example, for HF in 2004, hospitals located in counties with longstanding poverty had mean HQA composite scores of 73.0, compared with a mean of 84.1 for hospitals in counties without longstanding poverty (p < 0.001). Hospitals located in counties in the lowest quartile with respect to college graduates in the workforce had mean HQA composite scores of 76.7, compared with a mean of 86.2 for hospitals in the highest quartile (p < 0.001). Performance on AMI measures showed similar patterns. Performance improved generally over the study period. Nevertheless, by 2007—4 years after public reporting began—hospitals in locationally disadvantaged areas still lagged behind their locationally advantaged counterparts. This lag translated into substantially lower net scores under the Performance Assessment Model for hospital reimbursement. Conclusions: Hospital performance on clinical process measures is associated with the quantity and quality of local economic and human resources. Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance program may exacerbate inequalities across regions, if implemented as currently proposed. Policymakers in the US and beyond may need to take into consideration the balance between greater efficiency through pay-for-performance and socioeconomic equity.

More from these Authors

This paper shows how meso-level structures support effective coordination in temporary groups. Prior research on coordination in temporary groups describes how roles encode individual responsibilities so that coordination between relative strangers is possible. We extend this research by introducing key tenets from team effectiveness research to theorize when role-based coordination might be more or less effective. We develop these ideas in a multi-method study of a hospital emergency department (ED) redesign. Before the redesign, people coordinated in ad-hoc groupings, which provided flexibility because any nurse could work with any doctor, but these groupings were limited in effectiveness because people were not accountable to each other for progress, did not have shared understanding of their work, and faced interpersonal risks when reaching out to other roles. The redesign introduced new meso-level structures that bounded a set of roles (rather than a set of specific individuals, as in a team) and gave them collective responsibility for a whole task. We conceptualized the meso-level structures as team scaffolds and found that they embodied the logic of both role and team structures. The team scaffolds enabled small group interactions to take the form of an actual team process with team-level prioritizing, updating, and helping, based on new-found accountability, overlapping representations of work, and belonging—despite the lack of stable team composition. Quantitative data revealed changes to the coordination patterns in the ED (captured through a two-mode network) after the team scaffolds were implemented and showed a 40% improvement in patient throughput time.

This paper develops and tests a multi-level model that links individual and team experience with knowledge sourcing (specifically, knowledge repository (KR) use). Prior research theorizes that experienced workers source more than inexperienced workers because they have stronger information processing capabilities that motivate their search. Other research, however, suggests that teams source less as they gain experience because they develop and perpetuate set ways of thinking about problems. Which effect dominates the sourcing behavior of individuals working in teams? We argue that individual knowledge-sourcing behavior is shaped by both individual and team attributes and we provide an empirical test of new theory. Specifically we suggest that both individual capabilities and team average experience influence team member knowledge sourcing, and argue that there is an interaction between individual and team experience (meaning rookies and veterans working on inexperienced or experienced teams will be influenced differently). We find empirical support for this model. Team experience does not affect veteran team member knowledge sourcing, unless the team is very experienced; then, veterans slow their KR use. Rookies are more influenced by team composition: when working on teams with too little experience, too much experience, or a disparity of experience, rookie KR sourcing is limited. Yet on moderately experienced teams, rookies use almost on par with veterans. Importantly, limited KR use by highly experienced teams does not appear to be a savvy choice for exploiting team resources: KR use predicts team performance and the effect is not moderated by team experience.

This paper shows how meso-level structures support effective coordination in temporary groups. Prior research on coordination in temporary groups describes how roles encode individual responsibilities so that coordination between relative strangers is possible. We extend this research by introducing key tenets from team effectiveness research to theorize when role-based coordination might be more or less effective. We develop these ideas in a multi-method study of a hospital emergency department (ED) redesign. Before the redesign, people coordinated in ad-hoc groupings, which provided flexibility because any nurse could work with any doctor, but these groupings were limited in effectiveness because people were not accountable to each other for progress, did not have shared understanding of their work, and faced interpersonal risks when reaching out to other roles. The redesign introduced new meso-level structures that bounded a set of roles (rather than a set of specific individuals, as in a team) and gave them collective responsibility for a whole task. We conceptualized the meso-level structures as team scaffolds and found that they embodied the logic of both role and team structures. The team scaffolds enabled small group interactions to take the form of an actual team process with team-level prioritizing, updating, and helping, based on new-found accountability, overlapping representations of work, and belonging—despite the lack of stable team composition. Quantitative data revealed changes to the coordination patterns in the ED (captured through a two-mode network) after the team scaffolds were implemented and showed a 40% improvement in patient throughput time.